My favorite thing to hear them say is "If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys." It makes for a good honest laugh and everyone should have one of those once in awhile.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's not so much as why do monkeys still exist, more of why can't we find an in-between creature between monkeys and humans.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's a very shockingly good point

by Anonymous 11 years ago

**HUMANS DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MONKEYS** 10 minutes in a basic biology class would've had that covered. MONKEYS (and other like species) are the "in between" between HUMANS and the extinct COMMON ANCESTOR. The species branched out like a tree. Some became monkeys, some became gorillas, and some humans. It's really not all that mindblowing. It's disgusting that people who deny evolution even exist in the 21st century.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Never denied it dude. I definietly believe it. I do however, like to question what everybody takes as common wisdom. Think about it for a second...if the theory was 100% sound, why have we seen little, if any, physical evolution from ourselves, and why isn't there a spectrum of species that look very similar? Evolution isn't like pokemon where you simply evolve into one organism or another...there has to be some kind of progression of characteristics displayed.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Because the process of evolution happens over millions of years.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Exactly. It's not like after a million years a monkey turned into a person. There was obviously a gradual change. So how come there aren't a bunch of halfman-halfmonkeys running around? I'm not trying to deny evolution, but isn't it worth thinking about instead of blindly accepting it as truth and immediately condemning anyone who disagrees?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

We don't see physical evolution from ourselves because evolution is a slow process. You won't be able to see any great changes in humans in one generation because it can take thousands of years for any noticeable changes to occur. Some species do look similar to their closest cousins. Take macaws, for example. Here's a picture of a Hyacinth Macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Anodorhynchus_hyacinthinus_-Australia_Zoo_-8-2c.jpg Here's a picture of the Hyacinth's close cousin, the Lear's Macaw (Anodorhynchus leari) http://www.konicaminolta.com/kids/endangered_animals/library/sky/img/lears-macaw_img01-l.jpg The two species look almost identical. The only obvious difference is that the Lear's Macaw is slightly darker and smaller, but other than that, there are no noticeable differences. You can also compare other macaw species and you'll see that, while they are different species, they look almost the same except some may be a slightly different size, or have different colors. Many people get certain species of macaws mixed up because they look so similar (for example, the Scarlet Macaw and the Green-Winged Macaw).

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I understand that, but we've kept records and find human fossils from about 40,000 years ago with little to no difference. Like I keep saying, I don't disagree with the basic principles of the theory, but doesn't it seem interesting how there are no in-between organisms for species that are said to have evolved from another? There are no animals that have some traits of a monkey and some of a human. There are only monkeys and humans. It's pretty strange if you think about it

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"There are no animals that have some traits of a monkey and some of a human." Yes there are, or more like were. There's homo erectus, which is a species of the hominid genus that appeared in Africa with the earliest fossil evidence dating to around 1.8 million years ago. There's also Ardipithecus kadabba, a species that had a brain and body size similar to chimpanzees, but also had canines that resemble those of later hominid species. Some scientists speculate that this species was the last common ancestor of modern humans and chimpanzees, although it's not known for certain. There's also the Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Australopithecus sediba, and many others. These species had traits that resembled both apes and humans, however, they don't exist today because they went extinct. You won't find any current animals that are half human and half ape because apes are our closest living relatives. Note: I'm assuming that by "monkey" you mean "ape" because we're more closely related to apes than monkeys, and people often get those two mixed up.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Now see, that's new information to me that helped answer the question instead of pointless bickering. Thanks OP

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I agree that evolution is certainly a real thing, but I think that just as many people who //do// accept evolution don't do it for the right reasons because they don't know enough about science either. Just because someone accepts a scientific hypotheses **does not** mean that they understand science or have a scientific mind.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's not a hypothesis, it's a theory. There is a major difference.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Even so, simply accepting it isn't very scientific.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But what they lack in knowledge of science, they compensate with FAITH!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's not true for all people. You can believe in both science and religion at the same time.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

First, there's many branches of science. It extends beyond one simple theory so it's inaccurate to assume they don't know much about science. Also, some people don't believe that science is the truest form of knowledge. Think about it for a second from a hyper-religious person's point of view; they would be asking why there's any reason to accept this kind of human-inspired knowledge when they receive revelation from a higher power.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

god created humans in his own image. it says so in the bible!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Science is basically the act and process of humans trying to understand. Religion is the act of people claiming to understand. Neither of you understand. Shut the fuck up. Go to your rooms.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think I agree with evolution (and yes it is stated in my religious text) but I don't think I believe the link between humans and apes/monkeys. like it's very plausible that we have changed over time, but it just doesn't make sense to me I guess that we directly evolved from monkeys... But from what I understand most religions tell you to seek knowledge and to accept scientific fact, because it is fact... (as far as I know in my religion science is incredibly important)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

We didn't directly evolve from monkeys.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. This common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. The species then diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas, chimps, and other primates, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids. Since the earliest hominid species diverged from the ancestor we share with modern African apes, there have been at least a dozen different species of these humanlike creatures. Many of these hominid species are close relatives, but not human ancestors. These different species branched off and evolved differently according to the conditions around them. We either adapt or become extinct, and most went extinct without giving rise to other species.

by Anonymous 11 years ago